Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs Shooting: 3 Dead

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jasper76**

Even if one wanted to pin this on Christianity, it really can't be done. Most Christians in the US are pro-choice.

I think the religious and political right seriously need to take a hard look at themselves as to how they go about trying to convince society to criminalize abortion. Only those with their head in the sand do not realize that the religious right and their proxies in politics have for ages been demonizing their opponents over abortion, and most recently have aimed their crosshairs on Planned Parenthood over what amounts to a dishonest hoax. The language has not been pretty nor civil. Theres a good opinion piece in the post today detailing this.

I dont completely blame the pro-life movement for the apparent fact that a lone wolf killer adopted their cause and turned it violent. But the rhetoric cannot be simply swept under the carpet.

**Frazzled**

jasper76 wrote:
Even if one wanted to pin this on Christianity, it really can't be done. Most Christians in the US are pro-choice.

I think the religious and political right seriously need to take a hard look at themselves as to how they go about trying to convince society to criminalize abortion. Only those with their head in the sand do not realize that the religious right and their proxies in politics have for ages been demonizing their opponents over abortion, and most recently have aimed their crosshairs on Planned Parenthood over what amounts to a dishonest hoax. The language has not been pretty nor civil. Theres a good opinion piece in the post today detailing this.

I dont completely blame the pro-life movement for the apparent fact that a lone wolf killer adopted their cause and turned it violent. But the rhetoric cannot be simply swept under the carpet.

What rhetoric?
They were indeed giving out body parts for research. Thats not in dispute. The fact PP said it will no longer take money for it makes their other claims factual as well. The fact PP sucks off the government teat and then gives political kickbacks to politicians (just like government unions) would be criminal in other contexts.

They believe these are babies. This is not rhetoric. Its a scientific fact that makes you feel bad and then angry about when confronted with it. Most people realize that but support abortion anyway as a necessary evil.

**jasper76**

Here is a link to the article to which I was referring.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anti-abortion-rhetoric-unwittingly-unleashes-the-unhinged/2015/11/30/6bcf4d2c-97ae-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

If you and others don't recognize the pro-life movemts rhetoric as unnecessarily demonizing and incindieary, hen I guess that might be Problem 1 with the Pro Lifes PR situatiion.

**Frazzled**

1. You didn't dispute what I said.
2. Because you don't like it, its "incendiary"
3. Tough tookus. Incendiary language is the cornerstone of free speech in the USA.

**Tactical_Spam**

Frazzled wrote:
Incendiary language is the cornerstone of free speech in the USA.

Yet we say its wrong... Logic

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
Here is a link to the article to which I was referring.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anti-abortion-rhetoric-unwittingly-unleashes-the-unhinged/2015/11/30/6bcf4d2c-97ae-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

If you and others don't recognize the pro-life movemts rhetoric as unnecessarily demonizing and incindieary, hen I guess that might be Problem 1 with the Pro Lifes PR situatiion.

No. It's nothing more than an attack on free speech and the political process.

Even the very liberal Denver Post editorial his more honest on this situation:

In Colorado Springs, a familiar tale of an armed fanatic

Surely no one is surprised to learn that the man arrested for the vicious attack at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs has been described as angry, unsociable and quick to vent emphatic opinions, with hints of violence in his past.

Oh, and well-armed. But perhaps that almost goes without saying in modern America, unfortunately.

Robert Lewis Dear appears to be the latest example of a dangerous type we have become all too familiar with. And which we seem powerless to defuse. But nevertheless, let us not flinch from stating the obvious even if it has been said multiple times before.

Yes, the "easy accessibility" of weapons undoubtedly contributes to these incidents of carnage, just as President Obama said over the weekend. One can defend the Second Amendment and an individual freedom to own guns for self-defense while still acknowledging that it sometimes empowers the deranged zealots of this world.

And it is no stretch to call the incident a version of domestic terrorism, assuming the assailant's motives were in fact what every sign seems to indicate. NARAL Pro-Choice America is right to suggest that a violent attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic sends an intimidating message to employees at every other such facility in Colorado and the nation. And that's true even if the perpetrator was acting alone and without counsel or coordination with other extremists. People capable of such vile deeds may be few in number, but the last thing they need is the example of a killer in Colorado Springs.

Some commentators are blaming the harsh rhetoric of anti-abortion activists and right-wing media in the wake of undercover videos released this year by the Center for Medical Progress for inflaming the unstable. And while some rhetoric has indeed been vitriolic, the fact remains that vehement political language is a reality in a society that always has had, and always will have, deep and passionate disagreements over issues of conscience. Strong rhetoric is a far cry from threats or attempted coercion, let alone violence with a gun.

Finally, the word "hero" is grossly overused these days in a media culture always on the hunt for superlatives, but the word is apt indeed when applied to the police who responded Friday to the active shooter at the clinic and found themselves under fire. In another sad and tragic weekend for this state, their unflinching resolve to rescue innocent people in and around the clinic stands out as an exemplary contrast to the depravity that summoned them to the scene.

**Ahtman**

And here I thought shooting people was an attack on Free Speech. Apparently those that make the link between asinine rabble rousing and violence are the real terrorists.

**whembly**

text removed.
Reds8n

**jasper76**

So suggesting that people tone down their rhetoric is now an attack on free speech?

No one is suggesting that you all don't have the right to call women who've had abortions and the doctors who provided them murderers, felons, barbarians, etc.

It would just be a nice thing to do. And if the pro life movements end goal is the criminalization of abortion, or even just reductions in abortions, it's hard to see that demonizing the very people you wish to convince is helpful in any way except to make people on both sides angry. But if you believe these tactics are worthwhile, I certainly believe you have every right to do so short of directly inciting violence.

**Frazzled**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Incendiary language is the cornerstone of free speech in the USA.

Yet we say its wrong... Logic

Those say it is wrong have misplaced values. To be secure in their safe space they should live in a society where freedom of speech is more moderated. China perhaps?
After all, the concept is stupid. Just because HRC called Republicans her enemies, and Obama equated the Republican party with terrorism doesn't mean they are responsible for attacks that result of their incendiary language. Just because the BLM was calling for the murder of cops doesn't mean they caused the death of three police officers. Its a stupid argument.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
And here I thought shooting people was an attack on Free Speech. Apparently those that make the link between asinine rabble rousing and violence are the real terrorists.

There are two parts to your statement, neither of which appear related to the other.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

And if the pro life movements end goal is the criminalization of abortion, or even just reductions in abortions, it's hard to see that demonizing the very people you wish to convince is helpful

Who's the "you" I am not trying to convince anyone. I think the fervent believers on both sides are doing it wrong.

**lonestarr777**

CptJake wrote:
lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.

I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.

When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.

I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.

By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

**Kilkrazy**

If robust, inflammatory language is a cornerstone of free speech perhaps it is sauce for the gander when someone tries to tar the anti-abortion movement with the nutjob shooter's brush. Or something.

**jasper76**

@frazzled: just a bad choice of words on my part. I dhouldve said "the prolife movement" instead of "you"

**Frazzled**

When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.

I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.

By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

Its amazing, how none of what you just posted seems to tie together. Its almost like there are at least two other sides to what you are saying...

And yes I dismiss you on this issue because of your personal stated bias on this topic.

@frazzled: just a bad choice of words on my part. I dhouldve said "the prolife movement" instead of "you"

Ok gotcha. For the record that is a fair point, but I imagine, like any movement, there are the flame thrower types, and then there is the other side trying to quietly and calmly change things.
Also for the record, I think its stupid of the Republican Party to tie themselves in on this issue. If the RP quit caring about this and "those rainbow types" and focused on the core issues of the economy, economic and social freedom, it would be a much different party.

**CptJake**

lonestarr777 wrote:

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

Will do!

**jasper76**

Kilkrazy wrote:
If robust, inflammatory language is a cornerstone of free speech perhaps it is sauce for the gander when someone tries to tar the anti-abortion movement with the nutjob shooter's brush. Or something.

Saying that the dude may have been inspired by the onslought of anti-Planned Parenthood propganda that has exploded with the release of those disingenuous videos isn't exactly tarring the pro-life movement with the same brush

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Incendiary language is the cornerstone of free speech in the USA.

Yet we say its wrong... Logic

Those say it is wrong have misplaced values. To be secure in their safe space they should live in a society where freedom of speech is more moderated. China perhaps?
After all, the concept is stupid. Just because HRC called Republicans her enemies, and Obama equated the Republican party with terrorism doesn't mean they are responsible for attacks that result of their incendiary language. Just because the BLM was calling for the murder of cops doesn't mean they caused the death of three police officers. Its a stupid argument.

the BLM did no such thing, that was another doctored video from fox. Just like the shooter quoted and all republican candidates, they all quoted the same debunked video.

Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.

Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?

free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.

**whembly**

sirlynchmob wrote:

Second when does free speech cross into hate speech

How do you define this? FYI... the US doesn't have hate speech laws...

and inciting violence.

There are laws against that... although, the bar is set high to achieve conviction.

Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?

You mean, like when SPLC had a targeted map for FRC's office?

free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.

You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.

**CptJake**

The 'yelling fire' analogy is just fething stupid to begin with.

The 1st Amendment guarantees free political speech.

And I would like to see an actual federal law making it illegal to yell 'fire' any damned place, let alone in a theater.

**Frazzled**

Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.

No such thing as hate speech legally. Thats a fantasy someone made up.

"Inciting violence?" There are a series of crimes I think you are referring to. They typically require: 1) immediacy; 2) specific person; 3) ability. Note this is a paraphrase and your jurisdiction may vary.

So one can say: "we don't cotton to no blue folk"
One can say "death to the blue folk!"
one can say "death to the blue folk right now!"
one cannot say " You, you , and you, see that blue guy over there? Kill him with your axes, now!"
Tough to be a Blue guy...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.

No one has tested if you can yell "water" in a crowded theater. Just an interesting historical note. Tsunamis get no respect.

**Tactical_Spam**

Frazzled wrote:

Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.

No such thing as hate speech legally. Thats a fantasy someone made up.

"Inciting violence?" There are a series of crimes I think you are referring to. They typically require: 1) immediacy; 2) specific person; 3) ability. Note this is a paraphrase and your jurisdiction may vary.

So one can say: "we don't cotton to no blue folk"
One can say "death to the blue folk!"
one can say "death to the blue folk right now!"
one cannot say " You, you , and you, see that blue guy over there? Kill him with your axes, now!"
Tough to be a Blue guy...

I can assume that either you don't like Smurfs or Democrats...

**Goliath**

whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?

You mean, like when SPLC had a targeted map for FRC's office?

Now, I know and you know that you're intelligent enough to know the difference between those two situations.

Situation A:
Wanted poster is Distributed with specific people's addresses, faces and names
A number of those people are then murdered in separate incidents

Situation B:
Southern Poverty Law Centre creates large list of hate groups
Single person attacks Family Research Council and wounds a guard

One of these situations is going "Here are some groups we disagree with and believe should be classified as hate groups based on their rhetoric"
The other is a group of people specifically distributing information that led to the death of abortion providers.

Besides which, no-one here has said that what happened at the FRC was okay in any way, shape or form. At this point it's basically just whataboutism.

Come on. You're better than this.

free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.

You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.

What happens if there isn't a fire, but someone is just sort of stood there with a picture of a fire attempting to convince people that the place is burning down? What about then?

Because using the "if there's an actual fething fire" argument would imply that there is any actual credence to the claims being espoused by Fiorina and her friends, when those claims have been debunked.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I would point out to people that are saying "well, they can't be charged with a crime!" No-one here that I have seen is advocating charging people that are dealing in that sort of rhetoric with any sort of crime. Merely pointing out that, you know, actions have consequences.

If you point out how evil an organisation is every day for months on end, then maybe someone eventually might think they should do something about it in order to stop that organisation from harvesting babies.

**whembly**

Goliath wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?

You mean, like when SPLC had a targeted map for FRC's office?

Now, I know and you know that you're intelligent enough to know the difference between those two situations.

Situation A:
Wanted poster is Distributed with specific people's addresses, faces and names
A number of those people are then murdered in separate incidents

Situation B:
Southern Poverty Law Centre creates large list of hate groups
Single person attacks Family Research Council and wounds a guard

One of these situations is going "Here are some groups we disagree with and believe should be classified as hate groups based on their rhetoric"
The other is a group of people specifically distributing information that led to the death of abortion providers.

Besides which, no-one here has said that what happened at the FRC was okay in any way, shape or form. At this point it's basically just whataboutism.

Come on. You're better than this.

The only difference is the outcome of both scenarios.

Corkins plotted to kill "as many people as possible" inspired by SPLC's target list and was only stopped by an armed guard.

Both scenarios involved "inflammatory rhetoric".

free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.

You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.
What happens if there isn't a fire, but someone is just sort of stood there with a picture of a fire attempting to convince people that the place is burning down? What about then?

Because using the "if there's an actual fething fire" argument would imply that there is any actual credence to the claims being espoused by Fiorina and her friends, when those claims have been debunked.

Huh? What claims??

**Goliath**

whembly wrote:
The only difference is the outcome of both scenarios.

Corkins plotted to kill "as many people as possible" inspired by SPLC's target list and was only stopped by an armed guard.

Both scenarios involved "inflammatory rhetoric".

And? They're both bad. Just because SPLC did it first doesn't mean it isn't also an awful situation.

Huh? What claims??

The general "They're being paid to harvest babies" falsehood that's being perpetuated by the right. Specifically Fiorina, but also a number of other people, including other presidential nomination candidates.

**Breotan**

Psienesis wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.

You're missing the point. The "left" in this country has been desperately trying for years to tie the Christian "right" to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. Thus when an abortion clinic get shot up, it must be an example of Christian motivated/conspired terrorism. It just has to be. The "left's" blind hatred of conservative Christians is so extreme they don't even see how toxic their own views have become.

I understand elections are coming up and most of the candidates suck but that isn't an excuse for the base rudeness that's welling up all over the internet. Seriously, everyone needs to just step back and take a damn chill pill.

So, we have confirmed reports that the shooter was a fundamentalist Christian, anti-government agitator, and reports from the police that the fictional videos related to Planned Parenthood appear to have been a contributing factor to the crime.

Link to your source, please. The only reports I've seen say nothing about his faith or political beliefs. In f act, CBS News reported, "The only publicly available clue to his motivation so far is that officers claim Dear said "no more baby parts," while being led away from the scene after his arrest." Even the claim that the videos are connected to this somehow is currently unsubstantiated as police have not reported a connection.

One more thing, regarding the videos. They have not been "debunked" or proven "fake" as many in this thread are claiming. Snopes doesn't call it false. Even CNN, the guys who supposedly "exposed" the fraud didn't take the position of the videos being fake or fictional. In fact, the CNN article is actually far more even handed than Planned Parenthood supported would have us believe.

"The two examples of misleading pictures and video have allowed Planned Parenthood and its supporters to label the Center for Medical Progress's entire production a fraud.

Dawn Laguens, an executive vice president with Planned Parenthood, repeated the defense the women's health group and its many supporters have been trying to convey since the first of the Center for Medical Progress's nine videos began to be released online.

"All of the tapes and footage David Daleiden has released out into the world has been heavily edited," Laguens told CNN. "And I think pretty thoroughly discredited."

Daleiden insists the two uses of video and photos are not misleading, and says the entire controversy has been manufactured by Planned Parenthood and its "allies in the mainstream media" in order to divert attention from the main point of his documentary: that Planned Parenthood uses aborted fetal tissue as a revenue source.

That's right. They reported a CLAIM by Planned Parenthood and a rebuttal by Daleiden. Daleiden further supported his claim by releasing the unedited videos (the interviews) which did nothing to exonerate Planned Parenthood or change the context of what was said in those interviews. Planned Parenthood wound up changing the way they deal with tissue donation and fees involved.

**whembly**

Goliath wrote:
whembly wrote:
The only difference is the outcome of both scenarios.

Corkins plotted to kill "as many people as possible" inspired by SPLC's target list and was only stopped by an armed guard.

Both scenarios involved "inflammatory rhetoric".

And? They're both bad. Just because SPLC did it first doesn't mean it isn't also an awful situation.

Um...that was my bloody point!

Huh? What claims??
The general "They're being paid to harvest babies" falsehood that's being perpetuated by the right. Specifically Fiorina, but also a number of other people, including other presidential nomination candidates.

Ah... you were discussing fire in a theater and segued into Fiorina. I was confused.

I won't comment on that as it'll be offtopic and ya'll know my positions.

**skyth**

Funny that the Republican congressional investigation of the videos found no wrongdoing on the part of PP.

**Frazzled**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.

No such thing as hate speech legally. Thats a fantasy someone made up.

"Inciting violence?" There are a series of crimes I think you are referring to. They typically require: 1) immediacy; 2) specific person; 3) ability. Note this is a paraphrase and your jurisdiction may vary.

So one can say: "we don't cotton to no blue folk"
One can say "death to the blue folk!"
one can say "death to the blue folk right now!"
one cannot say " You, you , and you, see that blue guy over there? Kill him with your axes, now!"
Tough to be a Blue guy...

I can assume that either you don't like Smurfs or Democrats...

I'm fine with Democrats. The only good Smurf is a Dead Smurf!

**Kilkrazy**

There is a difference between fake and false.

If someone paints a great picture in the style of Van Gogh and passes it off as a Van Gogh, it's a fake but it's a real picture and may have value of its own.

Conversely, the video about the abortion uses real footage to make the apparently false implication that the PP organisation is in business to sell spare organs.

Naturally this finds already audience in people who are against abortion.

**djones520**

skyth wrote:
Funny that the Republican congressional investigation of the videos found no wrongdoing on the part of PP.

Just because it wasn't illegal doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

PP wouldn't have changed policies otherwise.